Bush is what he is, and that's the problem

Apparently Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald is willing to admit that there are two world views when it comes to politics and leadership. One is 'nuanced': say one thing, but mean another; have a 'public' persona, but live a divergent private life, etc and one is direct: what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG). I prefer direct - which in my mind is open and honest. Pitts, and I assume others, seems to prefer the nuanced:

"Where famous people are concerned -- and few people are more famous than a president -- we are all armchair shrinks, peeling away layers of public artifice to reach private truth. But the Wead tapes suggest that, where this famous person is concerned, you can peel to your heart's content: For better or for worse, you will find only more of the same.

What you see is what you get. He is what he is.

With apologies to a certain sailor man, some of us don't find that comforting at all."

Perhaps (besides the premise of integrity) what Pitts finds uncomfortable, is the vision of Bush's policy. Ownership versus dependency. And even scarier to Pitts, Bush actually means it!